You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@camel.apache.org by sgargan <sg...@qualcomm.com> on 2009/06/10 22:42:42 UTC
Autowiring RouteBuilders defined as beans in Spring.
In the 1.6 codeline it was possible to define routebuilders as beans in a
Spring context and have them wired into the camel context upon intialization
e.g.
<bean id="simpleHttpRoute" class="org.simple.SimpleHttpToFileRoute" />
This bean would have been added to the context when the following block of
code in in the installRoutes method of the CamelContextFactoryBean was
executed
protected void installRoutes() throws Exception {
if (autowireRouteBuilders != null &&
autowireRouteBuilders.booleanValue()) {
Map builders =
getApplicationContext().getBeansOfType(RouteBuilder.class, true, true);
if (builders != null) {
for (Object builder : builders.values()) {
getContext().addRoutes((RouteBuilder) builder);
}
}
}
In the 2.0 codeline, this section has been removed (as part of a fix for the
following issue/feature http://bit.ly/n6ojs ) and the context defined routes
do not get added. I was wondering what the reason was for dropping this? Was
it considered harmful?
I know the package scan can be used to initialise RouteBuilders it finds in
packages, but it can be annoying to exclude routes from this mechanism, for
instance where you have test RouteBuilders that happen to live in the same
package in the test src tree, or where there are routes that complicate
testing with setup and noise. Also in situations where you configure the
RouteBean explicitly e.g. to inject values from properties files, it is much
cleaner to define the routes as beans.
Short of adding my own CamelContextAwareBean to do the same, Is there a
different mechanism to do setup Routes this way?
Thanks in advance
Stephen.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23970613.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Autowiring RouteBuilders defined as beans in Spring.
Posted by sgargan <sg...@qualcomm.com>.
How about just allowing a class to be specified in the package scan? Some
kind of ContextAware scan handler that could process arbitrary classes? It
would be similar in many ways to a BeanPostProcessor and could default to
scanning for routes e.g.
<packageScan>
<scanhandler>org.apache.camel.scan.ComponentScanHandler</scanhandler>
</packageScan>
with an interface along the lines of
public interface ScanHandler{
public void processDiscoveredClasses(Set<Class> matching);
// or even with instantiated instances
public void processDiscoveredInstances(Set<T> matchingInstances);
}
Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Willem Jiang<wi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> Claus created a same requirement[1] as yours, but I like your scanner
>> with exclude and include option more :)
> Yeah Stephens works is really cool.
>
> Now that we are into changing the DSL for route builder I have thought
> of introducing a uber tag for that
> As you can configure route builders as either a reference
> <rouuteBuilder> or using the scanner <packageScan>.
>
> <routeBuilders>
> <packageScan>
> ...
> </packageScan>
> <routeBuilder ref="foo"/>
> </routeBuilders>
>
> But this requires an extra XML tag and it makes the configuration a
> bit more verbose.
> And I guess its uncommon to use the combo of scanner and routeBuilder
> ref together?
>
>
>> Thanks for your contribution.
>>
>> [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1695
>
>
>>
>> Willem
>>
>> sgargan wrote:
>>> Claus,
>>>
>>> I've made a patch to allow the Ant like inclusion and exclusion you
>>> suggested. I've opened an improvement Jira ticket for it with a patch
>>> https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1708.
>>>
>>> Please shout if there is anything you'd like changed with it.
>>>
>>> thx
>>>
>>> ste
>>>
>>>
>>> sgargan wrote:
>>>> Cheers Claus. The ant exclusions sound like a good idea. Let me take a
>>>> look at what that would involve.
>>>>
>>>> thx for your help,
>>>>
>>>> ste
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:42 PM, sgargan<sg...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>>>>> In the 1.6 codeline it was possible to define routebuilders as beans
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> Spring context and have them wired into the camel context upon
>>>>>> intialization
>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <bean id="simpleHttpRoute" class="org.simple.SimpleHttpToFileRoute"
>>>>>> />
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This bean would have been added to the context when the following
>>>>>> block
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> code in in the installRoutes method of the CamelContextFactoryBean
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> executed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> protected void installRoutes() throws Exception {
>>>>>> if (autowireRouteBuilders != null &&
>>>>>> autowireRouteBuilders.booleanValue()) {
>>>>>> Map builders =
>>>>>> getApplicationContext().getBeansOfType(RouteBuilder.class, true,
>>>>>> true);
>>>>>> if (builders != null) {
>>>>>> for (Object builder : builders.values()) {
>>>>>> getContext().addRoutes((RouteBuilder) builder);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the 2.0 codeline, this section has been removed (as part of a fix
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> following issue/feature http://bit.ly/n6ojs ) and the context defined
>>>>>> routes
>>>>>> do not get added. I was wondering what the reason was for dropping
>>>>>> this?
>>>>>> Was
>>>>>> it considered harmful?
>>>>> You can use the <routeBuilder ref="simpleHttpRoute"/> in
>>>>> <camelContext>.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it was considered to magical. What if you have 2 camel contextes
>>>>> then they would both
>>>>> load up all the route builders they could find as spring beans.
>>>>>
>>>>> And for users coming in to maintain the code would not be able to
>>>>> figure
>>>>> out
>>>>> how the routes are kick started.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet alone the <package> could be a bit difficult to understand.
>>>>> That reminds me, maybe if it was named package-scan it would be easier
>>>>> to hint that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I know the package scan can be used to initialise RouteBuilders it
>>>>>> finds
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> packages, but it can be annoying to exclude routes from this
>>>>>> mechanism,
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> instance where you have test RouteBuilders that happen to live in the
>>>>>> same
>>>>>> package in the test src tree, or where there are routes that
>>>>>> complicate
>>>>>> testing with setup and noise. Also in situations where you configure
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> RouteBean explicitly e.g. to inject values from properties files, it
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> cleaner to define the routes as beans.
>>>>> I have been wondering if we should add ANT files matcher here as well,
>>>>> so you can
>>>>> specify includes/excludes as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Short of adding my own CamelContextAwareBean to do the same, Is there
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> different mechanism to do setup Routes this way?
>>>>> Yes the <routeBuilder ref> tag.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks in advance
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stephen.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23970613.html
>>>>>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Claus Ibsen
>>>>> Apache Camel Committer
>>>>>
>>>>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
>>>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> Apache Camel Committer
>
> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p24062437.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Autowiring RouteBuilders defined as beans in Spring.
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Willem Jiang<wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Claus created a same requirement[1] as yours, but I like your scanner
> with exclude and include option more :)
Yeah Stephens works is really cool.
Now that we are into changing the DSL for route builder I have thought
of introducing a uber tag for that
As you can configure route builders as either a reference
<rouuteBuilder> or using the scanner <packageScan>.
<routeBuilders>
<packageScan>
...
</packageScan>
<routeBuilder ref="foo"/>
</routeBuilders>
But this requires an extra XML tag and it makes the configuration a
bit more verbose.
And I guess its uncommon to use the combo of scanner and routeBuilder
ref together?
> Thanks for your contribution.
>
> [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1695
>
> Willem
>
> sgargan wrote:
>> Claus,
>>
>> I've made a patch to allow the Ant like inclusion and exclusion you
>> suggested. I've opened an improvement Jira ticket for it with a patch
>> https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1708.
>>
>> Please shout if there is anything you'd like changed with it.
>>
>> thx
>>
>> ste
>>
>>
>> sgargan wrote:
>>> Cheers Claus. The ant exclusions sound like a good idea. Let me take a
>>> look at what that would involve.
>>>
>>> thx for your help,
>>>
>>> ste
>>>
>>>
>>> Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:42 PM, sgargan<sg...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>>>> In the 1.6 codeline it was possible to define routebuilders as beans in
>>>>> a
>>>>> Spring context and have them wired into the camel context upon
>>>>> intialization
>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>
>>>>> <bean id="simpleHttpRoute" class="org.simple.SimpleHttpToFileRoute" />
>>>>>
>>>>> This bean would have been added to the context when the following block
>>>>> of
>>>>> code in in the installRoutes method of the CamelContextFactoryBean was
>>>>> executed
>>>>>
>>>>> protected void installRoutes() throws Exception {
>>>>> if (autowireRouteBuilders != null &&
>>>>> autowireRouteBuilders.booleanValue()) {
>>>>> Map builders =
>>>>> getApplicationContext().getBeansOfType(RouteBuilder.class, true, true);
>>>>> if (builders != null) {
>>>>> for (Object builder : builders.values()) {
>>>>> getContext().addRoutes((RouteBuilder) builder);
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> In the 2.0 codeline, this section has been removed (as part of a fix for
>>>>> the
>>>>> following issue/feature http://bit.ly/n6ojs ) and the context defined
>>>>> routes
>>>>> do not get added. I was wondering what the reason was for dropping this?
>>>>> Was
>>>>> it considered harmful?
>>>> You can use the <routeBuilder ref="simpleHttpRoute"/> in <camelContext>.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it was considered to magical. What if you have 2 camel contextes
>>>> then they would both
>>>> load up all the route builders they could find as spring beans.
>>>>
>>>> And for users coming in to maintain the code would not be able to figure
>>>> out
>>>> how the routes are kick started.
>>>>
>>>> Yet alone the <package> could be a bit difficult to understand.
>>>> That reminds me, maybe if it was named package-scan it would be easier
>>>> to hint that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I know the package scan can be used to initialise RouteBuilders it finds
>>>>> in
>>>>> packages, but it can be annoying to exclude routes from this mechanism,
>>>>> for
>>>>> instance where you have test RouteBuilders that happen to live in the
>>>>> same
>>>>> package in the test src tree, or where there are routes that complicate
>>>>> testing with setup and noise. Also in situations where you configure the
>>>>> RouteBean explicitly e.g. to inject values from properties files, it is
>>>>> much
>>>>> cleaner to define the routes as beans.
>>>> I have been wondering if we should add ANT files matcher here as well,
>>>> so you can
>>>> specify includes/excludes as well.
>>>>
>>>>> Short of adding my own CamelContextAwareBean to do the same, Is there a
>>>>> different mechanism to do setup Routes this way?
>>>> Yes the <routeBuilder ref> tag.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks in advance
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephen.
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23970613.html
>>>>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Claus Ibsen
>>>> Apache Camel Committer
>>>>
>>>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
>>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
--
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
Re: Autowiring RouteBuilders defined as beans in Spring.
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 2:52 AM, sgargan <sg...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
> Claus,
>
> I've added documentation for this feature. I took the liberty of inlining a
> lot of the code blocks in the page rather than using the snippets that were
> currently there. I really like this feature, but it suits the developers
> best and poses a chicken and egg scenario for contributors with no commit
> access. I'd have to post patches with snippets and have these applied
> before
> I could finish documenting and I need to document before my patches are
> applied ;)
>
> Feel free to edit any of it and restore the snippets if you feel the need.
>
Hi Stephen
Great work on both the patches and the documentation. Well described and
with examples. Cool.
Feel free to add a line on the 2.0 release notes page as a new feature
camel.apache.org/camel-200-release.html
>
> rgds,
>
> ste
>
> Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:52 PM, sgargan <sg...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Claus,
> >>
> >> My username for the wiki is sgargan.
> >
> >
> > Hi I have granted you karma so you should be able to edit the wiki pages
> > now.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> ste
> >>
> >> Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:21 PM, sgargan <sg...@qualcomm.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I've put together some documentation for the feature, its not much.
> >> Claus
> >> >> mentioned some kind of karma(?) to allow me to edit the confluence
> >> >> pages.
> >> >> If you'd prefer I can just mail it to one of you, though I don't mind
> >> >> adding
> >> >> it. Just state a preference.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hi
> >> >
> >> > To get karma you need to create an account on the wiki pages. Just
> >> click
> >> > edit in the bottom of any of the camel
> >> > html wiki pages. Then state your username in a mail on this forum and
> I
> >> > will
> >> > be able to grant your edit rights (= karma).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers
> >> >>
> >> >> ste
> >> >>
> >> >> willem.jiang wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hi Stephen,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Claus created a same requirement[1] as yours, but I like your
> >> scanner
> >> >> > with exclude and include option more :)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks for your contribution.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1695
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Willem
> >> >> >
> >> >> > sgargan wrote:
> >> >> >> Claus,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I've made a patch to allow the Ant like inclusion and exclusion
> you
> >> >> >> suggested. I've opened an improvement Jira ticket for it with a
> >> patch
> >> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1708.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Please shout if there is anything you'd like changed with it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> thx
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ste
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> sgargan wrote:
> >> >> >>> Cheers Claus. The ant exclusions sound like a good idea. Let me
> >> take
> >> >> a
> >> >> >>> look at what that would involve.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> thx for your help,
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> ste
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
> >> >> >>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:42 PM, sgargan<sg...@qualcomm.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>> In the 1.6 codeline it was possible to define routebuilders as
> >> >> beans
> >> >> >>>>> in
> >> >> >>>>> a
> >> >> >>>>> Spring context and have them wired into the camel context upon
> >> >> >>>>> intialization
> >> >> >>>>> e.g.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> <bean id="simpleHttpRoute"
> >> class="org.simple.SimpleHttpToFileRoute"
> >> >> />
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> This bean would have been added to the context when the
> >> following
> >> >> >>>>> block
> >> >> >>>>> of
> >> >> >>>>> code in in the installRoutes method of the
> >> CamelContextFactoryBean
> >> >> >>>>> was
> >> >> >>>>> executed
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> protected void installRoutes() throws Exception {
> >> >> >>>>> if (autowireRouteBuilders != null &&
> >> >> >>>>> autowireRouteBuilders.booleanValue()) {
> >> >> >>>>> Map builders =
> >> >> >>>>> getApplicationContext().getBeansOfType(RouteBuilder.class,
> true,
> >> >> >>>>> true);
> >> >> >>>>> if (builders != null) {
> >> >> >>>>> for (Object builder : builders.values()) {
> >> >> >>>>> getContext().addRoutes((RouteBuilder)
> >> builder);
> >> >> >>>>> }
> >> >> >>>>> }
> >> >> >>>>> }
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> In the 2.0 codeline, this section has been removed (as part of
> a
> >> >> fix
> >> >> >>>>> for
> >> >> >>>>> the
> >> >> >>>>> following issue/feature http://bit.ly/n6ojs ) and the context
> >> >> defined
> >> >> >>>>> routes
> >> >> >>>>> do not get added. I was wondering what the reason was for
> >> dropping
> >> >> >>>>> this?
> >> >> >>>>> Was
> >> >> >>>>> it considered harmful?
> >> >> >>>> You can use the <routeBuilder ref="simpleHttpRoute"/> in
> >> >> >>>> <camelContext>.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Yes it was considered to magical. What if you have 2 camel
> >> contextes
> >> >> >>>> then they would both
> >> >> >>>> load up all the route builders they could find as spring beans.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> And for users coming in to maintain the code would not be able
> to
> >> >> >>>> figure
> >> >> >>>> out
> >> >> >>>> how the routes are kick started.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Yet alone the <package> could be a bit difficult to understand.
> >> >> >>>> That reminds me, maybe if it was named package-scan it would be
> >> >> easier
> >> >> >>>> to hint that.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>> I know the package scan can be used to initialise RouteBuilders
> >> it
> >> >> >>>>> finds
> >> >> >>>>> in
> >> >> >>>>> packages, but it can be annoying to exclude routes from this
> >> >> >>>>> mechanism,
> >> >> >>>>> for
> >> >> >>>>> instance where you have test RouteBuilders that happen to live
> >> in
> >> >> the
> >> >> >>>>> same
> >> >> >>>>> package in the test src tree, or where there are routes that
> >> >> >>>>> complicate
> >> >> >>>>> testing with setup and noise. Also in situations where you
> >> >> configure
> >> >> >>>>> the
> >> >> >>>>> RouteBean explicitly e.g. to inject values from properties
> >> files,
> >> >> it
> >> >> >>>>> is
> >> >> >>>>> much
> >> >> >>>>> cleaner to define the routes as beans.
> >> >> >>>> I have been wondering if we should add ANT files matcher here as
> >> >> well,
> >> >> >>>> so you can
> >> >> >>>> specify includes/excludes as well.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>> Short of adding my own CamelContextAwareBean to do the same, Is
> >> >> there
> >> >> >>>>> a
> >> >> >>>>> different mechanism to do setup Routes this way?
> >> >> >>>> Yes the <routeBuilder ref> tag.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>> Thanks in advance
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> Stephen.
> >> >> >>>>> --
> >> >> >>>>> View this message in context:
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >>
> >>
> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23970613.html
> >> >> >>>>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> --
> >> >> >>>> Claus Ibsen
> >> >> >>>> Apache Camel Committer
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
> >> >> >>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> >> >> >>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> View this message in context:
> >> >>
> >>
> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p24062126.html
> >> >> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Claus Ibsen
> >> > Apache Camel Committer
> >> >
> >> > Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
> >> > Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> >> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p24078757.html
> >> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Claus Ibsen
> > Apache Camel Committer
> >
> > Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
> > Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p24140437.html
> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
Re: Autowiring RouteBuilders defined as beans in Spring.
Posted by sgargan <sg...@qualcomm.com>.
Claus,
I've added documentation for this feature. I took the liberty of inlining a
lot of the code blocks in the page rather than using the snippets that were
currently there. I really like this feature, but it suits the developers
best and poses a chicken and egg scenario for contributors with no commit
access. I'd have to post patches with snippets and have these applied before
I could finish documenting and I need to document before my patches are
applied ;)
Feel free to edit any of it and restore the snippets if you feel the need.
rgds,
ste
Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:52 PM, sgargan <sg...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Claus,
>>
>> My username for the wiki is sgargan.
>
>
> Hi I have granted you karma so you should be able to edit the wiki pages
> now.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> ste
>>
>> Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:21 PM, sgargan <sg...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I've put together some documentation for the feature, its not much.
>> Claus
>> >> mentioned some kind of karma(?) to allow me to edit the confluence
>> >> pages.
>> >> If you'd prefer I can just mail it to one of you, though I don't mind
>> >> adding
>> >> it. Just state a preference.
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > To get karma you need to create an account on the wiki pages. Just
>> click
>> > edit in the bottom of any of the camel
>> > html wiki pages. Then state your username in a mail on this forum and I
>> > will
>> > be able to grant your edit rights (= karma).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >>
>> >> ste
>> >>
>> >> willem.jiang wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi Stephen,
>> >> >
>> >> > Claus created a same requirement[1] as yours, but I like your
>> scanner
>> >> > with exclude and include option more :)
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for your contribution.
>> >> >
>> >> > [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1695
>> >> >
>> >> > Willem
>> >> >
>> >> > sgargan wrote:
>> >> >> Claus,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've made a patch to allow the Ant like inclusion and exclusion you
>> >> >> suggested. I've opened an improvement Jira ticket for it with a
>> patch
>> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1708.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Please shout if there is anything you'd like changed with it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> thx
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ste
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> sgargan wrote:
>> >> >>> Cheers Claus. The ant exclusions sound like a good idea. Let me
>> take
>> >> a
>> >> >>> look at what that would involve.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> thx for your help,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> ste
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:42 PM, sgargan<sg...@qualcomm.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>>> In the 1.6 codeline it was possible to define routebuilders as
>> >> beans
>> >> >>>>> in
>> >> >>>>> a
>> >> >>>>> Spring context and have them wired into the camel context upon
>> >> >>>>> intialization
>> >> >>>>> e.g.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> <bean id="simpleHttpRoute"
>> class="org.simple.SimpleHttpToFileRoute"
>> >> />
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> This bean would have been added to the context when the
>> following
>> >> >>>>> block
>> >> >>>>> of
>> >> >>>>> code in in the installRoutes method of the
>> CamelContextFactoryBean
>> >> >>>>> was
>> >> >>>>> executed
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> protected void installRoutes() throws Exception {
>> >> >>>>> if (autowireRouteBuilders != null &&
>> >> >>>>> autowireRouteBuilders.booleanValue()) {
>> >> >>>>> Map builders =
>> >> >>>>> getApplicationContext().getBeansOfType(RouteBuilder.class, true,
>> >> >>>>> true);
>> >> >>>>> if (builders != null) {
>> >> >>>>> for (Object builder : builders.values()) {
>> >> >>>>> getContext().addRoutes((RouteBuilder)
>> builder);
>> >> >>>>> }
>> >> >>>>> }
>> >> >>>>> }
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> In the 2.0 codeline, this section has been removed (as part of a
>> >> fix
>> >> >>>>> for
>> >> >>>>> the
>> >> >>>>> following issue/feature http://bit.ly/n6ojs ) and the context
>> >> defined
>> >> >>>>> routes
>> >> >>>>> do not get added. I was wondering what the reason was for
>> dropping
>> >> >>>>> this?
>> >> >>>>> Was
>> >> >>>>> it considered harmful?
>> >> >>>> You can use the <routeBuilder ref="simpleHttpRoute"/> in
>> >> >>>> <camelContext>.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Yes it was considered to magical. What if you have 2 camel
>> contextes
>> >> >>>> then they would both
>> >> >>>> load up all the route builders they could find as spring beans.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> And for users coming in to maintain the code would not be able to
>> >> >>>> figure
>> >> >>>> out
>> >> >>>> how the routes are kick started.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Yet alone the <package> could be a bit difficult to understand.
>> >> >>>> That reminds me, maybe if it was named package-scan it would be
>> >> easier
>> >> >>>> to hint that.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> I know the package scan can be used to initialise RouteBuilders
>> it
>> >> >>>>> finds
>> >> >>>>> in
>> >> >>>>> packages, but it can be annoying to exclude routes from this
>> >> >>>>> mechanism,
>> >> >>>>> for
>> >> >>>>> instance where you have test RouteBuilders that happen to live
>> in
>> >> the
>> >> >>>>> same
>> >> >>>>> package in the test src tree, or where there are routes that
>> >> >>>>> complicate
>> >> >>>>> testing with setup and noise. Also in situations where you
>> >> configure
>> >> >>>>> the
>> >> >>>>> RouteBean explicitly e.g. to inject values from properties
>> files,
>> >> it
>> >> >>>>> is
>> >> >>>>> much
>> >> >>>>> cleaner to define the routes as beans.
>> >> >>>> I have been wondering if we should add ANT files matcher here as
>> >> well,
>> >> >>>> so you can
>> >> >>>> specify includes/excludes as well.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> Short of adding my own CamelContextAwareBean to do the same, Is
>> >> there
>> >> >>>>> a
>> >> >>>>> different mechanism to do setup Routes this way?
>> >> >>>> Yes the <routeBuilder ref> tag.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> Thanks in advance
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Stephen.
>> >> >>>>> --
>> >> >>>>> View this message in context:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >>
>> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23970613.html
>> >> >>>>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> --
>> >> >>>> Claus Ibsen
>> >> >>>> Apache Camel Committer
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
>> >> >>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>> >> >>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> View this message in context:
>> >>
>> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p24062126.html
>> >> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Claus Ibsen
>> > Apache Camel Committer
>> >
>> > Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
>> > Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p24078757.html
>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> Apache Camel Committer
>
> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p24140437.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Autowiring RouteBuilders defined as beans in Spring.
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:52 PM, sgargan <sg...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
> Claus,
>
> My username for the wiki is sgargan.
Hi I have granted you karma so you should be able to edit the wiki pages
now.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> ste
>
> Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:21 PM, sgargan <sg...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I've put together some documentation for the feature, its not much.
> Claus
> >> mentioned some kind of karma(?) to allow me to edit the confluence
> >> pages.
> >> If you'd prefer I can just mail it to one of you, though I don't mind
> >> adding
> >> it. Just state a preference.
> >
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > To get karma you need to create an account on the wiki pages. Just click
> > edit in the bottom of any of the camel
> > html wiki pages. Then state your username in a mail on this forum and I
> > will
> > be able to grant your edit rights (= karma).
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> ste
> >>
> >> willem.jiang wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi Stephen,
> >> >
> >> > Claus created a same requirement[1] as yours, but I like your scanner
> >> > with exclude and include option more :)
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for your contribution.
> >> >
> >> > [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1695
> >> >
> >> > Willem
> >> >
> >> > sgargan wrote:
> >> >> Claus,
> >> >>
> >> >> I've made a patch to allow the Ant like inclusion and exclusion you
> >> >> suggested. I've opened an improvement Jira ticket for it with a patch
> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1708.
> >> >>
> >> >> Please shout if there is anything you'd like changed with it.
> >> >>
> >> >> thx
> >> >>
> >> >> ste
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> sgargan wrote:
> >> >>> Cheers Claus. The ant exclusions sound like a good idea. Let me take
> >> a
> >> >>> look at what that would involve.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> thx for your help,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ste
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
> >> >>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:42 PM, sgargan<sg...@qualcomm.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>>>> In the 1.6 codeline it was possible to define routebuilders as
> >> beans
> >> >>>>> in
> >> >>>>> a
> >> >>>>> Spring context and have them wired into the camel context upon
> >> >>>>> intialization
> >> >>>>> e.g.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> <bean id="simpleHttpRoute"
> class="org.simple.SimpleHttpToFileRoute"
> >> />
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> This bean would have been added to the context when the following
> >> >>>>> block
> >> >>>>> of
> >> >>>>> code in in the installRoutes method of the
> CamelContextFactoryBean
> >> >>>>> was
> >> >>>>> executed
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> protected void installRoutes() throws Exception {
> >> >>>>> if (autowireRouteBuilders != null &&
> >> >>>>> autowireRouteBuilders.booleanValue()) {
> >> >>>>> Map builders =
> >> >>>>> getApplicationContext().getBeansOfType(RouteBuilder.class, true,
> >> >>>>> true);
> >> >>>>> if (builders != null) {
> >> >>>>> for (Object builder : builders.values()) {
> >> >>>>> getContext().addRoutes((RouteBuilder) builder);
> >> >>>>> }
> >> >>>>> }
> >> >>>>> }
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> In the 2.0 codeline, this section has been removed (as part of a
> >> fix
> >> >>>>> for
> >> >>>>> the
> >> >>>>> following issue/feature http://bit.ly/n6ojs ) and the context
> >> defined
> >> >>>>> routes
> >> >>>>> do not get added. I was wondering what the reason was for dropping
> >> >>>>> this?
> >> >>>>> Was
> >> >>>>> it considered harmful?
> >> >>>> You can use the <routeBuilder ref="simpleHttpRoute"/> in
> >> >>>> <camelContext>.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Yes it was considered to magical. What if you have 2 camel
> contextes
> >> >>>> then they would both
> >> >>>> load up all the route builders they could find as spring beans.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> And for users coming in to maintain the code would not be able to
> >> >>>> figure
> >> >>>> out
> >> >>>> how the routes are kick started.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Yet alone the <package> could be a bit difficult to understand.
> >> >>>> That reminds me, maybe if it was named package-scan it would be
> >> easier
> >> >>>> to hint that.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> I know the package scan can be used to initialise RouteBuilders it
> >> >>>>> finds
> >> >>>>> in
> >> >>>>> packages, but it can be annoying to exclude routes from this
> >> >>>>> mechanism,
> >> >>>>> for
> >> >>>>> instance where you have test RouteBuilders that happen to live in
> >> the
> >> >>>>> same
> >> >>>>> package in the test src tree, or where there are routes that
> >> >>>>> complicate
> >> >>>>> testing with setup and noise. Also in situations where you
> >> configure
> >> >>>>> the
> >> >>>>> RouteBean explicitly e.g. to inject values from properties files,
> >> it
> >> >>>>> is
> >> >>>>> much
> >> >>>>> cleaner to define the routes as beans.
> >> >>>> I have been wondering if we should add ANT files matcher here as
> >> well,
> >> >>>> so you can
> >> >>>> specify includes/excludes as well.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Short of adding my own CamelContextAwareBean to do the same, Is
> >> there
> >> >>>>> a
> >> >>>>> different mechanism to do setup Routes this way?
> >> >>>> Yes the <routeBuilder ref> tag.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Thanks in advance
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Stephen.
> >> >>>>> --
> >> >>>>> View this message in context:
> >> >>>>>
> >>
> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23970613.html
> >> >>>>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> --
> >> >>>> Claus Ibsen
> >> >>>> Apache Camel Committer
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
> >> >>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> >> >>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p24062126.html
> >> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Claus Ibsen
> > Apache Camel Committer
> >
> > Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
> > Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p24078757.html
> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
Re: Autowiring RouteBuilders defined as beans in Spring.
Posted by sgargan <sg...@qualcomm.com>.
Claus,
My username for the wiki is sgargan.
Cheers,
ste
Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:21 PM, sgargan <sg...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I've put together some documentation for the feature, its not much. Claus
>> mentioned some kind of karma(?) to allow me to edit the confluence
>> pages.
>> If you'd prefer I can just mail it to one of you, though I don't mind
>> adding
>> it. Just state a preference.
>
>
> Hi
>
> To get karma you need to create an account on the wiki pages. Just click
> edit in the bottom of any of the camel
> html wiki pages. Then state your username in a mail on this forum and I
> will
> be able to grant your edit rights (= karma).
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> ste
>>
>> willem.jiang wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Stephen,
>> >
>> > Claus created a same requirement[1] as yours, but I like your scanner
>> > with exclude and include option more :)
>> >
>> > Thanks for your contribution.
>> >
>> > [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1695
>> >
>> > Willem
>> >
>> > sgargan wrote:
>> >> Claus,
>> >>
>> >> I've made a patch to allow the Ant like inclusion and exclusion you
>> >> suggested. I've opened an improvement Jira ticket for it with a patch
>> >> https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1708.
>> >>
>> >> Please shout if there is anything you'd like changed with it.
>> >>
>> >> thx
>> >>
>> >> ste
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> sgargan wrote:
>> >>> Cheers Claus. The ant exclusions sound like a good idea. Let me take
>> a
>> >>> look at what that would involve.
>> >>>
>> >>> thx for your help,
>> >>>
>> >>> ste
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:42 PM, sgargan<sg...@qualcomm.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>> In the 1.6 codeline it was possible to define routebuilders as
>> beans
>> >>>>> in
>> >>>>> a
>> >>>>> Spring context and have them wired into the camel context upon
>> >>>>> intialization
>> >>>>> e.g.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> <bean id="simpleHttpRoute" class="org.simple.SimpleHttpToFileRoute"
>> />
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> This bean would have been added to the context when the following
>> >>>>> block
>> >>>>> of
>> >>>>> code in in the installRoutes method of the CamelContextFactoryBean
>> >>>>> was
>> >>>>> executed
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> protected void installRoutes() throws Exception {
>> >>>>> if (autowireRouteBuilders != null &&
>> >>>>> autowireRouteBuilders.booleanValue()) {
>> >>>>> Map builders =
>> >>>>> getApplicationContext().getBeansOfType(RouteBuilder.class, true,
>> >>>>> true);
>> >>>>> if (builders != null) {
>> >>>>> for (Object builder : builders.values()) {
>> >>>>> getContext().addRoutes((RouteBuilder) builder);
>> >>>>> }
>> >>>>> }
>> >>>>> }
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> In the 2.0 codeline, this section has been removed (as part of a
>> fix
>> >>>>> for
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> following issue/feature http://bit.ly/n6ojs ) and the context
>> defined
>> >>>>> routes
>> >>>>> do not get added. I was wondering what the reason was for dropping
>> >>>>> this?
>> >>>>> Was
>> >>>>> it considered harmful?
>> >>>> You can use the <routeBuilder ref="simpleHttpRoute"/> in
>> >>>> <camelContext>.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yes it was considered to magical. What if you have 2 camel contextes
>> >>>> then they would both
>> >>>> load up all the route builders they could find as spring beans.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And for users coming in to maintain the code would not be able to
>> >>>> figure
>> >>>> out
>> >>>> how the routes are kick started.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yet alone the <package> could be a bit difficult to understand.
>> >>>> That reminds me, maybe if it was named package-scan it would be
>> easier
>> >>>> to hint that.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> I know the package scan can be used to initialise RouteBuilders it
>> >>>>> finds
>> >>>>> in
>> >>>>> packages, but it can be annoying to exclude routes from this
>> >>>>> mechanism,
>> >>>>> for
>> >>>>> instance where you have test RouteBuilders that happen to live in
>> the
>> >>>>> same
>> >>>>> package in the test src tree, or where there are routes that
>> >>>>> complicate
>> >>>>> testing with setup and noise. Also in situations where you
>> configure
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> RouteBean explicitly e.g. to inject values from properties files,
>> it
>> >>>>> is
>> >>>>> much
>> >>>>> cleaner to define the routes as beans.
>> >>>> I have been wondering if we should add ANT files matcher here as
>> well,
>> >>>> so you can
>> >>>> specify includes/excludes as well.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Short of adding my own CamelContextAwareBean to do the same, Is
>> there
>> >>>>> a
>> >>>>> different mechanism to do setup Routes this way?
>> >>>> Yes the <routeBuilder ref> tag.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks in advance
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Stephen.
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> View this message in context:
>> >>>>>
>> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23970613.html
>> >>>>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Claus Ibsen
>> >>>> Apache Camel Committer
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
>> >>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>> >>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p24062126.html
>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> Apache Camel Committer
>
> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p24078757.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Autowiring RouteBuilders defined as beans in Spring.
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:21 PM, sgargan <sg...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
> I've put together some documentation for the feature, its not much. Claus
> mentioned some kind of karma(?) to allow me to edit the confluence pages.
> If you'd prefer I can just mail it to one of you, though I don't mind
> adding
> it. Just state a preference.
Hi
To get karma you need to create an account on the wiki pages. Just click
edit in the bottom of any of the camel
html wiki pages. Then state your username in a mail on this forum and I will
be able to grant your edit rights (= karma).
>
>
> Cheers
>
> ste
>
> willem.jiang wrote:
> >
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > Claus created a same requirement[1] as yours, but I like your scanner
> > with exclude and include option more :)
> >
> > Thanks for your contribution.
> >
> > [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1695
> >
> > Willem
> >
> > sgargan wrote:
> >> Claus,
> >>
> >> I've made a patch to allow the Ant like inclusion and exclusion you
> >> suggested. I've opened an improvement Jira ticket for it with a patch
> >> https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1708.
> >>
> >> Please shout if there is anything you'd like changed with it.
> >>
> >> thx
> >>
> >> ste
> >>
> >>
> >> sgargan wrote:
> >>> Cheers Claus. The ant exclusions sound like a good idea. Let me take a
> >>> look at what that would involve.
> >>>
> >>> thx for your help,
> >>>
> >>> ste
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:42 PM, sgargan<sg...@qualcomm.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>> In the 1.6 codeline it was possible to define routebuilders as beans
> >>>>> in
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> Spring context and have them wired into the camel context upon
> >>>>> intialization
> >>>>> e.g.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <bean id="simpleHttpRoute" class="org.simple.SimpleHttpToFileRoute"
> />
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This bean would have been added to the context when the following
> >>>>> block
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> code in in the installRoutes method of the CamelContextFactoryBean
> >>>>> was
> >>>>> executed
> >>>>>
> >>>>> protected void installRoutes() throws Exception {
> >>>>> if (autowireRouteBuilders != null &&
> >>>>> autowireRouteBuilders.booleanValue()) {
> >>>>> Map builders =
> >>>>> getApplicationContext().getBeansOfType(RouteBuilder.class, true,
> >>>>> true);
> >>>>> if (builders != null) {
> >>>>> for (Object builder : builders.values()) {
> >>>>> getContext().addRoutes((RouteBuilder) builder);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the 2.0 codeline, this section has been removed (as part of a fix
> >>>>> for
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> following issue/feature http://bit.ly/n6ojs ) and the context
> defined
> >>>>> routes
> >>>>> do not get added. I was wondering what the reason was for dropping
> >>>>> this?
> >>>>> Was
> >>>>> it considered harmful?
> >>>> You can use the <routeBuilder ref="simpleHttpRoute"/> in
> >>>> <camelContext>.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes it was considered to magical. What if you have 2 camel contextes
> >>>> then they would both
> >>>> load up all the route builders they could find as spring beans.
> >>>>
> >>>> And for users coming in to maintain the code would not be able to
> >>>> figure
> >>>> out
> >>>> how the routes are kick started.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yet alone the <package> could be a bit difficult to understand.
> >>>> That reminds me, maybe if it was named package-scan it would be easier
> >>>> to hint that.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I know the package scan can be used to initialise RouteBuilders it
> >>>>> finds
> >>>>> in
> >>>>> packages, but it can be annoying to exclude routes from this
> >>>>> mechanism,
> >>>>> for
> >>>>> instance where you have test RouteBuilders that happen to live in the
> >>>>> same
> >>>>> package in the test src tree, or where there are routes that
> >>>>> complicate
> >>>>> testing with setup and noise. Also in situations where you configure
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> RouteBean explicitly e.g. to inject values from properties files, it
> >>>>> is
> >>>>> much
> >>>>> cleaner to define the routes as beans.
> >>>> I have been wondering if we should add ANT files matcher here as well,
> >>>> so you can
> >>>> specify includes/excludes as well.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Short of adding my own CamelContextAwareBean to do the same, Is there
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> different mechanism to do setup Routes this way?
> >>>> Yes the <routeBuilder ref> tag.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thanks in advance
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stephen.
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> View this message in context:
> >>>>>
> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23970613.html
> >>>>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Claus Ibsen
> >>>> Apache Camel Committer
> >>>>
> >>>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
> >>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> >>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p24062126.html
> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
Re: Autowiring RouteBuilders defined as beans in Spring.
Posted by sgargan <sg...@qualcomm.com>.
I've put together some documentation for the feature, its not much. Claus
mentioned some kind of karma(?) to allow me to edit the confluence pages.
If you'd prefer I can just mail it to one of you, though I don't mind adding
it. Just state a preference.
Cheers
ste
willem.jiang wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Claus created a same requirement[1] as yours, but I like your scanner
> with exclude and include option more :)
>
> Thanks for your contribution.
>
> [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1695
>
> Willem
>
> sgargan wrote:
>> Claus,
>>
>> I've made a patch to allow the Ant like inclusion and exclusion you
>> suggested. I've opened an improvement Jira ticket for it with a patch
>> https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1708.
>>
>> Please shout if there is anything you'd like changed with it.
>>
>> thx
>>
>> ste
>>
>>
>> sgargan wrote:
>>> Cheers Claus. The ant exclusions sound like a good idea. Let me take a
>>> look at what that would involve.
>>>
>>> thx for your help,
>>>
>>> ste
>>>
>>>
>>> Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:42 PM, sgargan<sg...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>>>> In the 1.6 codeline it was possible to define routebuilders as beans
>>>>> in
>>>>> a
>>>>> Spring context and have them wired into the camel context upon
>>>>> intialization
>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>
>>>>> <bean id="simpleHttpRoute" class="org.simple.SimpleHttpToFileRoute" />
>>>>>
>>>>> This bean would have been added to the context when the following
>>>>> block
>>>>> of
>>>>> code in in the installRoutes method of the CamelContextFactoryBean
>>>>> was
>>>>> executed
>>>>>
>>>>> protected void installRoutes() throws Exception {
>>>>> if (autowireRouteBuilders != null &&
>>>>> autowireRouteBuilders.booleanValue()) {
>>>>> Map builders =
>>>>> getApplicationContext().getBeansOfType(RouteBuilder.class, true,
>>>>> true);
>>>>> if (builders != null) {
>>>>> for (Object builder : builders.values()) {
>>>>> getContext().addRoutes((RouteBuilder) builder);
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> In the 2.0 codeline, this section has been removed (as part of a fix
>>>>> for
>>>>> the
>>>>> following issue/feature http://bit.ly/n6ojs ) and the context defined
>>>>> routes
>>>>> do not get added. I was wondering what the reason was for dropping
>>>>> this?
>>>>> Was
>>>>> it considered harmful?
>>>> You can use the <routeBuilder ref="simpleHttpRoute"/> in
>>>> <camelContext>.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it was considered to magical. What if you have 2 camel contextes
>>>> then they would both
>>>> load up all the route builders they could find as spring beans.
>>>>
>>>> And for users coming in to maintain the code would not be able to
>>>> figure
>>>> out
>>>> how the routes are kick started.
>>>>
>>>> Yet alone the <package> could be a bit difficult to understand.
>>>> That reminds me, maybe if it was named package-scan it would be easier
>>>> to hint that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I know the package scan can be used to initialise RouteBuilders it
>>>>> finds
>>>>> in
>>>>> packages, but it can be annoying to exclude routes from this
>>>>> mechanism,
>>>>> for
>>>>> instance where you have test RouteBuilders that happen to live in the
>>>>> same
>>>>> package in the test src tree, or where there are routes that
>>>>> complicate
>>>>> testing with setup and noise. Also in situations where you configure
>>>>> the
>>>>> RouteBean explicitly e.g. to inject values from properties files, it
>>>>> is
>>>>> much
>>>>> cleaner to define the routes as beans.
>>>> I have been wondering if we should add ANT files matcher here as well,
>>>> so you can
>>>> specify includes/excludes as well.
>>>>
>>>>> Short of adding my own CamelContextAwareBean to do the same, Is there
>>>>> a
>>>>> different mechanism to do setup Routes this way?
>>>> Yes the <routeBuilder ref> tag.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks in advance
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephen.
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23970613.html
>>>>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Claus Ibsen
>>>> Apache Camel Committer
>>>>
>>>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
>>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p24062126.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Autowiring RouteBuilders defined as beans in Spring.
Posted by Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>.
Hi Stephen,
Claus created a same requirement[1] as yours, but I like your scanner
with exclude and include option more :)
Thanks for your contribution.
[1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1695
Willem
sgargan wrote:
> Claus,
>
> I've made a patch to allow the Ant like inclusion and exclusion you
> suggested. I've opened an improvement Jira ticket for it with a patch
> https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1708.
>
> Please shout if there is anything you'd like changed with it.
>
> thx
>
> ste
>
>
> sgargan wrote:
>> Cheers Claus. The ant exclusions sound like a good idea. Let me take a
>> look at what that would involve.
>>
>> thx for your help,
>>
>> ste
>>
>>
>> Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:42 PM, sgargan<sg...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>>> In the 1.6 codeline it was possible to define routebuilders as beans in
>>>> a
>>>> Spring context and have them wired into the camel context upon
>>>> intialization
>>>> e.g.
>>>>
>>>> <bean id="simpleHttpRoute" class="org.simple.SimpleHttpToFileRoute" />
>>>>
>>>> This bean would have been added to the context when the following block
>>>> of
>>>> code in in the installRoutes method of the CamelContextFactoryBean was
>>>> executed
>>>>
>>>> protected void installRoutes() throws Exception {
>>>> if (autowireRouteBuilders != null &&
>>>> autowireRouteBuilders.booleanValue()) {
>>>> Map builders =
>>>> getApplicationContext().getBeansOfType(RouteBuilder.class, true, true);
>>>> if (builders != null) {
>>>> for (Object builder : builders.values()) {
>>>> getContext().addRoutes((RouteBuilder) builder);
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> In the 2.0 codeline, this section has been removed (as part of a fix for
>>>> the
>>>> following issue/feature http://bit.ly/n6ojs ) and the context defined
>>>> routes
>>>> do not get added. I was wondering what the reason was for dropping this?
>>>> Was
>>>> it considered harmful?
>>> You can use the <routeBuilder ref="simpleHttpRoute"/> in <camelContext>.
>>>
>>> Yes it was considered to magical. What if you have 2 camel contextes
>>> then they would both
>>> load up all the route builders they could find as spring beans.
>>>
>>> And for users coming in to maintain the code would not be able to figure
>>> out
>>> how the routes are kick started.
>>>
>>> Yet alone the <package> could be a bit difficult to understand.
>>> That reminds me, maybe if it was named package-scan it would be easier
>>> to hint that.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I know the package scan can be used to initialise RouteBuilders it finds
>>>> in
>>>> packages, but it can be annoying to exclude routes from this mechanism,
>>>> for
>>>> instance where you have test RouteBuilders that happen to live in the
>>>> same
>>>> package in the test src tree, or where there are routes that complicate
>>>> testing with setup and noise. Also in situations where you configure the
>>>> RouteBean explicitly e.g. to inject values from properties files, it is
>>>> much
>>>> cleaner to define the routes as beans.
>>> I have been wondering if we should add ANT files matcher here as well,
>>> so you can
>>> specify includes/excludes as well.
>>>
>>>> Short of adding my own CamelContextAwareBean to do the same, Is there a
>>>> different mechanism to do setup Routes this way?
>>> Yes the <routeBuilder ref> tag.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance
>>>>
>>>> Stephen.
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23970613.html
>>>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Claus Ibsen
>>> Apache Camel Committer
>>>
>>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Autowiring RouteBuilders defined as beans in Spring.
Posted by sgargan <sg...@qualcomm.com>.
Claus,
I've made a patch to allow the Ant like inclusion and exclusion you
suggested. I've opened an improvement Jira ticket for it with a patch
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1708.
Please shout if there is anything you'd like changed with it.
thx
ste
sgargan wrote:
>
> Cheers Claus. The ant exclusions sound like a good idea. Let me take a
> look at what that would involve.
>
> thx for your help,
>
> ste
>
>
> Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:42 PM, sgargan<sg...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> In the 1.6 codeline it was possible to define routebuilders as beans in
>>> a
>>> Spring context and have them wired into the camel context upon
>>> intialization
>>> e.g.
>>>
>>> <bean id="simpleHttpRoute" class="org.simple.SimpleHttpToFileRoute" />
>>>
>>> This bean would have been added to the context when the following block
>>> of
>>> code in in the installRoutes method of the CamelContextFactoryBean was
>>> executed
>>>
>>> protected void installRoutes() throws Exception {
>>> if (autowireRouteBuilders != null &&
>>> autowireRouteBuilders.booleanValue()) {
>>> Map builders =
>>> getApplicationContext().getBeansOfType(RouteBuilder.class, true, true);
>>> if (builders != null) {
>>> for (Object builder : builders.values()) {
>>> getContext().addRoutes((RouteBuilder) builder);
>>> }
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> In the 2.0 codeline, this section has been removed (as part of a fix for
>>> the
>>> following issue/feature http://bit.ly/n6ojs ) and the context defined
>>> routes
>>> do not get added. I was wondering what the reason was for dropping this?
>>> Was
>>> it considered harmful?
>> You can use the <routeBuilder ref="simpleHttpRoute"/> in <camelContext>.
>>
>> Yes it was considered to magical. What if you have 2 camel contextes
>> then they would both
>> load up all the route builders they could find as spring beans.
>>
>> And for users coming in to maintain the code would not be able to figure
>> out
>> how the routes are kick started.
>>
>> Yet alone the <package> could be a bit difficult to understand.
>> That reminds me, maybe if it was named package-scan it would be easier
>> to hint that.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I know the package scan can be used to initialise RouteBuilders it finds
>>> in
>>> packages, but it can be annoying to exclude routes from this mechanism,
>>> for
>>> instance where you have test RouteBuilders that happen to live in the
>>> same
>>> package in the test src tree, or where there are routes that complicate
>>> testing with setup and noise. Also in situations where you configure the
>>> RouteBean explicitly e.g. to inject values from properties files, it is
>>> much
>>> cleaner to define the routes as beans.
>>
>> I have been wondering if we should add ANT files matcher here as well,
>> so you can
>> specify includes/excludes as well.
>>
>>>
>>> Short of adding my own CamelContextAwareBean to do the same, Is there a
>>> different mechanism to do setup Routes this way?
>> Yes the <routeBuilder ref> tag.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance
>>>
>>> Stephen.
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23970613.html
>>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Claus Ibsen
>> Apache Camel Committer
>>
>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p24027819.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Autowiring RouteBuilders defined as beans in Spring.
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 9:53 PM, sgargan<sg...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
> Cheers Claus. The ant exclusions sound like a good idea. Let me take a look
> at what that would involve.
Cool we love contributions. Feel free to create a JIRA ticket for the
idea and you could write a comment in there
that you are looking into it.
http://camel.apache.org/contributing.html
>
> thx for your help,
>
> ste
>
>
> Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:42 PM, sgargan<sg...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> In the 1.6 codeline it was possible to define routebuilders as beans in a
>>> Spring context and have them wired into the camel context upon
>>> intialization
>>> e.g.
>>>
>>> <bean id="simpleHttpRoute" class="org.simple.SimpleHttpToFileRoute" />
>>>
>>> This bean would have been added to the context when the following block
>>> of
>>> code in in the installRoutes method of the CamelContextFactoryBean was
>>> executed
>>>
>>> protected void installRoutes() throws Exception {
>>> if (autowireRouteBuilders != null &&
>>> autowireRouteBuilders.booleanValue()) {
>>> Map builders =
>>> getApplicationContext().getBeansOfType(RouteBuilder.class, true, true);
>>> if (builders != null) {
>>> for (Object builder : builders.values()) {
>>> getContext().addRoutes((RouteBuilder) builder);
>>> }
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> In the 2.0 codeline, this section has been removed (as part of a fix for
>>> the
>>> following issue/feature http://bit.ly/n6ojs ) and the context defined
>>> routes
>>> do not get added. I was wondering what the reason was for dropping this?
>>> Was
>>> it considered harmful?
>> You can use the <routeBuilder ref="simpleHttpRoute"/> in <camelContext>.
>>
>> Yes it was considered to magical. What if you have 2 camel contextes
>> then they would both
>> load up all the route builders they could find as spring beans.
>>
>> And for users coming in to maintain the code would not be able to figure
>> out
>> how the routes are kick started.
>>
>> Yet alone the <package> could be a bit difficult to understand.
>> That reminds me, maybe if it was named package-scan it would be easier
>> to hint that.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I know the package scan can be used to initialise RouteBuilders it finds
>>> in
>>> packages, but it can be annoying to exclude routes from this mechanism,
>>> for
>>> instance where you have test RouteBuilders that happen to live in the
>>> same
>>> package in the test src tree, or where there are routes that complicate
>>> testing with setup and noise. Also in situations where you configure the
>>> RouteBean explicitly e.g. to inject values from properties files, it is
>>> much
>>> cleaner to define the routes as beans.
>>
>> I have been wondering if we should add ANT files matcher here as well,
>> so you can
>> specify includes/excludes as well.
>>
>>>
>>> Short of adding my own CamelContextAwareBean to do the same, Is there a
>>> different mechanism to do setup Routes this way?
>> Yes the <routeBuilder ref> tag.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance
>>>
>>> Stephen.
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23970613.html
>>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Claus Ibsen
>> Apache Camel Committer
>>
>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23987836.html
> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
Re: Autowiring RouteBuilders defined as beans in Spring.
Posted by sgargan <sg...@qualcomm.com>.
Cheers Claus. The ant exclusions sound like a good idea. Let me take a look
at what that would involve.
thx for your help,
ste
Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:42 PM, sgargan<sg...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>
>> In the 1.6 codeline it was possible to define routebuilders as beans in a
>> Spring context and have them wired into the camel context upon
>> intialization
>> e.g.
>>
>> <bean id="simpleHttpRoute" class="org.simple.SimpleHttpToFileRoute" />
>>
>> This bean would have been added to the context when the following block
>> of
>> code in in the installRoutes method of the CamelContextFactoryBean was
>> executed
>>
>> protected void installRoutes() throws Exception {
>> if (autowireRouteBuilders != null &&
>> autowireRouteBuilders.booleanValue()) {
>> Map builders =
>> getApplicationContext().getBeansOfType(RouteBuilder.class, true, true);
>> if (builders != null) {
>> for (Object builder : builders.values()) {
>> getContext().addRoutes((RouteBuilder) builder);
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> In the 2.0 codeline, this section has been removed (as part of a fix for
>> the
>> following issue/feature http://bit.ly/n6ojs ) and the context defined
>> routes
>> do not get added. I was wondering what the reason was for dropping this?
>> Was
>> it considered harmful?
> You can use the <routeBuilder ref="simpleHttpRoute"/> in <camelContext>.
>
> Yes it was considered to magical. What if you have 2 camel contextes
> then they would both
> load up all the route builders they could find as spring beans.
>
> And for users coming in to maintain the code would not be able to figure
> out
> how the routes are kick started.
>
> Yet alone the <package> could be a bit difficult to understand.
> That reminds me, maybe if it was named package-scan it would be easier
> to hint that.
>
>
>>
>> I know the package scan can be used to initialise RouteBuilders it finds
>> in
>> packages, but it can be annoying to exclude routes from this mechanism,
>> for
>> instance where you have test RouteBuilders that happen to live in the
>> same
>> package in the test src tree, or where there are routes that complicate
>> testing with setup and noise. Also in situations where you configure the
>> RouteBean explicitly e.g. to inject values from properties files, it is
>> much
>> cleaner to define the routes as beans.
>
> I have been wondering if we should add ANT files matcher here as well,
> so you can
> specify includes/excludes as well.
>
>>
>> Short of adding my own CamelContextAwareBean to do the same, Is there a
>> different mechanism to do setup Routes this way?
> Yes the <routeBuilder ref> tag.
>
>
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> Stephen.
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23970613.html
>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> Apache Camel Committer
>
> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23987836.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Autowiring RouteBuilders defined as beans in Spring.
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:42 PM, sgargan<sg...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
> In the 1.6 codeline it was possible to define routebuilders as beans in a
> Spring context and have them wired into the camel context upon intialization
> e.g.
>
> <bean id="simpleHttpRoute" class="org.simple.SimpleHttpToFileRoute" />
>
> This bean would have been added to the context when the following block of
> code in in the installRoutes method of the CamelContextFactoryBean was
> executed
>
> protected void installRoutes() throws Exception {
> if (autowireRouteBuilders != null &&
> autowireRouteBuilders.booleanValue()) {
> Map builders =
> getApplicationContext().getBeansOfType(RouteBuilder.class, true, true);
> if (builders != null) {
> for (Object builder : builders.values()) {
> getContext().addRoutes((RouteBuilder) builder);
> }
> }
> }
>
> In the 2.0 codeline, this section has been removed (as part of a fix for the
> following issue/feature http://bit.ly/n6ojs ) and the context defined routes
> do not get added. I was wondering what the reason was for dropping this? Was
> it considered harmful?
You can use the <routeBuilder ref="simpleHttpRoute"/> in <camelContext>.
Yes it was considered to magical. What if you have 2 camel contextes
then they would both
load up all the route builders they could find as spring beans.
And for users coming in to maintain the code would not be able to figure out
how the routes are kick started.
Yet alone the <package> could be a bit difficult to understand.
That reminds me, maybe if it was named package-scan it would be easier
to hint that.
>
> I know the package scan can be used to initialise RouteBuilders it finds in
> packages, but it can be annoying to exclude routes from this mechanism, for
> instance where you have test RouteBuilders that happen to live in the same
> package in the test src tree, or where there are routes that complicate
> testing with setup and noise. Also in situations where you configure the
> RouteBean explicitly e.g. to inject values from properties files, it is much
> cleaner to define the routes as beans.
I have been wondering if we should add ANT files matcher here as well,
so you can
specify includes/excludes as well.
>
> Short of adding my own CamelContextAwareBean to do the same, Is there a
> different mechanism to do setup Routes this way?
Yes the <routeBuilder ref> tag.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Stephen.
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23970613.html
> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus